Dang. He posted the minutes of the 5/28 hearing to GZLegalCase yesterday, but still not the 4th supplemental discovery.

They still have to disclose it if they have it-- even if they don't intend to use it, and/or it's all just more evidence in the categories Nelson called inadmissible-- right?

I mean, her rulings on 5/28 didn't preclude them posting the contents of the supplemental discovery, did they?

As far as I know, the material is public now. A person has to appear in the courthouse to request a copy. The court may put a copy on its court documents website soon, too.

All discovery is public under Florida law. Relevance and admissibility are separate inquiries.

There is another document that was filed with the court but not yet made public via the internet. That is titled "Motion to Compel Expert Witness Report Regarding Speech and/or Speaker Recognition." I think this goes to Reich, who has refused to produce the report he prepared for WaPo, claiming it was WaPo property.

They still have to disclose it if they have it-- even if they don't intend to use it, and/or it's all just more evidence in the categories Nelson called inadmissible-- right?

I'm not sure Nelson ruled anything inadmissible except the gold teeth, which both parties agreed aren't relevant. On everything else she either said the issue could be revisited at trial, or didn't explicitly say it couldn't be.

As to what kind of evidence is in the 4th supplemental, I have no idea.

There is another document that was filed with the court but not yet made public via the internet. That is titled "Motion to Compel Expert Witness Report Regarding Speech and/or Speaker Recognition." I think this goes to Reich, who has refused to produce the report he prepared for WaPo, claiming it was WaPo property.

I haven't heard anything about the logistics of the Frye hearing. Won't the four prosecution witnesses, Hollien, Hamburger, Owen and Reich all have to make themselves available, at least via video at prosecution expense? I assume it is OK for the defense to call Dr. Nakasone of the FBI and their mystery witness O'Mara keeps mentioning. I would give 2 to 1 odds than Owen and Reich will go down in flames.

I haven't heard anything about the logistics of the Frye hearing. Won't the four prosecution witnesses, Hollien, Hamburger, Owen and Reich all have to make themselves available, at least via video at prosecution expense? I assume it is OK for the defense to call Dr. Nakasone of the FBI and their mystery witness O'Mara keeps mentioning. I would give 2 to 1 odds than Owen and Reich will go down in flames.

Those experts don't have to be available. They have provided their credentials, experience, evidence, methodology and findings in the form of written materials. They might be made available by the prosecution, but they don't have to be there. Their work should stand on its own merit. The defense can call whoever it wants, and it may have notified the state experts that it intends to call them. I wouldn't, if I was defense. I would attack the experts' conclusions based on their reports. They all use the same methods against the same evidence, and they do not come to the same conclusion. Ergo the "trained ear" method is not reliable. This isn't a situation where two experts have different theories of law (which can happen), or see the evidence in light of different but reliable scientific lenses. In those cases, you will usually see competing experts at trial. The competing experts here use the same method (trained ear) on the same evidence, and given only two possible outcomes, they reach opposite conclusions.

I think it is more likely that Nelson will allow the experts to testify. She may limit Reich to his voice recognition and preclude any testimony as to word recognition. I base that speculation on a sense that Nelson is not averse to making reversible error in favor of the state. She has case law that she can interpret as allowing the testimony. Heck, she might exclude H&H and allow only Reich. The decision doesn't have to make logical sense.

As far as I know, the material is public now. A person has to appear in the courthouse to request a copy. The court may put a copy on its court documents website soon, too.

I think both parties have been leaning a bit on Judge Lester's Order on State's Motion for Protective Order which has been reaffirmed by Judge Nelson which allows redacted discovery of undisclosed witnesses' identifying information. For instance, since the beat-down video O'Mara alleges would presumably contain identifying images of prospective witnesses, I assume it would be redacted under that order though I suppose someone could ask the court for a transcript of the video.

I think both parties have been leaning a bit on Judge Lester's Order on State's Motion for Protective Order which has been reaffirmed by Judge Nelson which allows redacted discovery of undisclosed witnesses' identifying information. For instance, since the beat-down video O'Mara alleges would presumably contain identifying images of prospective witnesses, I assume it would be redacted under that order though I suppose someone could ask the court for a transcript of the video.

Very good point, and I should have stated the details as I understand them, so as to not cause confusion here. What is available in the courthouse is papers filed in the courthouse. Discovery details are not filed in the courthouse, except what may appear as exhibits actually attached to courthouse filings.

State's evidence is subject to state sunshine law - but I don't believe defense evidence falls under the same umbrella.

So, assuming the video is on the phone, it is discovery, and it is originally in the state's hands. You can't get it at the courthouse because the court doesn't have a copy of it, and there is no duty to give a copy to the court. Anybody can demand turnover from the state, but past press efforts at this were stonewalled by Corey with bogus legal arguments. I know this due to having been in direct communication with a member of the press at the time, and reviewing and commenting / criticizing / suggesting counterarguments to the state's stonewall.

On top of that, I absolutely agree with your observation that the state will also lean on Lester's order. Anybody (other than the defense) who wants to get a copy of that video from the state will have to litigate to get it, and that's not cheap.